This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be.
After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplishedartist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

Not Random. [UPDATED]

Beneficial mutations that advance an organism's fitness are, as we know, rare. Most spontaneous mutations are deleterious. Now, in a finding reported in the journal Heredity that has evolutionary biologists going "WTF??", it appears that the identical mutation is more likely to prove beneficial in less fit organisms than in their fitter cousins, improving the weaklings' chances not to die out. Huh?? Look:

Breed almost any organism under conditions where it is
forced to accumulate random mutations, its fitness will invariably
decay. The reason is that very few mutations improve an organism's
ability to survive or reproduce; the majority are harmful. But a recent
study suggests that the size of this majority depends, to a surprising
extent, on the [context] in which the mutations occur. The same mutation
occurring in a poorly adapted individual, Silander et al. (2007) argue, is more likely to be beneficial than if it occurred in a well-adapted individual.

These
results are noteworthy because they suggest that the effects of
mutations are dynamic rather than fixed. Such a view is consistent with
some models of evolution and not with others. For example, it suggests
that very small populations, which tend to accumulate harmful
mutations, will be protected from the endless accumulation of more and
more harmful mutations by an increasing rate of beneficial mutation.
This 'compensatory mutation' view contrasts with the 'mutational
meltdown' view, which instead suggests that such populations will
suffer a build-up of harmful mutations until they become extinct. [...]

To investigate this, Silander et al. (2007) applied techniques first used decades ago to study the fitness effects of mutations in Drosophila (Mukai, 1964), but instead used a virus system, a DNA bacteriophage known as X174.
With the addition of sophisticated statistical tools and computer
simulations, they were able to estimate the proportion of beneficial
mutations in virus lines with both high and low fitness. For all three
high-fitness lines measured, they were unable to detect any beneficial
mutations. But for two out of three low-fitness lines, beneficial
mutations were clearly evident. In fact, the fraction of mutations
inferred to be beneficial was substantial—16%. [...]

One possibility is that low-fitness populations, which suffer from more
deleterious mutations, could simply be experiencing a high rate of back
mutation—that is, the fitness decline might halt simply because the
harmful mutations are changing back to the more benign versions of
themselves. Silander et al. (2007)
approached this problem by using a mutagen to ensure that nearly all of
the mutations in their study were in one direction (from a cytosine
nucleotide to a thymine). Another possibility is that selection is
working overtime in low-fitness populations, helping them to maintain
their fitness: a mutation might well be more harmful in an already sick
virus than it is in a healthy individual. Since the worst mutations are
quickly eliminated—dead viruses do not replicate—selection would, in
this case, more effectively curtail further fitness decline in
low-fitness populations. But, as Silander et al. (2007)
show, selection is acting only slightly more strongly in low-fitness
populations, and the difference is not large enough to explain their
results. [...]

[T]he results from this study are consistent with what has been found in some studies of more complex organisms (Estes and Lynch, 2003).
Furthermore, the use of viruses for this kind of work opens up exciting
future possibilities. Viral genomes are small and easily manipulated,
and viral fitness is straightforward to measure. Thus, the main result
of Silander et al. (2007), that particular mutations have
different effects in high- versus low-fitness virus lines, could
potentially be tested directly.

It's as if a species or population, like an individual, is spurred to a desperate creativity by a threat to its existence. A sort of molecular necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention. But wait a minute. We're talking about creativity and invention at the level of DNA molecules.

Comments

" For all three high-fitness lines measured, they were unable to detect any beneficial mutations. But for two out of three low-fitness lines, beneficial mutations were clearly evident."

No, I don't think this should be surprising. If these results are correct, it shows that mutations are not necessarily random. That's all ID has really been saying.

"creativity and invention at the level of DNA molecules"

But why not? If nature is intelligent and the universe is infinitely creative and intelligent, then how could this be otherwise?

If you believe that intelligence and creativity are a product of physical brains, and are not inherent in all of reality, then this would be surprising, but otherwise it is not.

It does not matter, to me, if most biologists have believed nature is mindless for a hundred years. I think they are wrong, and so do others, and that's why we have an ID movement today.

The improvements in computers and other research technology are going to cause, and have already started causing, a tremendous humbling experience for biology. The Human Genome project is showing, more and more, that DNA is barely understood at all.

I think biology is going to face what physics already has -- nature is mind-warpingly complex and much smarter than we are.

And by the way, when you think about it, WHY should physical brains be considered the sole generators of intelligence?

I've no intention of revisiting all of our previous ID discussions. Off the top of my head, it appears that there was a LOT of manipulation going into this experiment. Not bad manipulation, but things like using a particular kind of mutagen to ensure that only a certain kind of mutation was most likely to take place. That could potentially skew the results.

Additionally, I don't see where the authors considered the simple possibility that weak individuals are simply more likely to show a benefit from a mutation precisely because of that weakness. A glass of water can save a man who has been in the desert for a week but have little effect on a healthy man. Similarly, mutations which have no or slightly deleterious effects in a healthy individual might actually provide some slight benefit to the unhealthy individual.

Consider the example of sickle cell anemia. In a healthy world, that's a genetic defect. In a malaria-infested world, being a carrier (having only one chromosome with the sickle cell gene) provides a substantial survival advantage.

"I love the idea that saying "WTF??" is part of scientists' job description."

It should be, but very often it is not. The currently accepted theory of evolution insists that the process is mindless. Evidence of things happening non-randomly is evidence against scientific materialism, and scientific materialism is not at all the same thing as science.

If a scientist is actually a scientist, not a believer in the religion of scientific materialism, he/she would be open to evidence against the currently accepted theory of evolution. But most are not.

I think there might be a gradual change from belief in mindless evolution to something that starts to resemble ID. But they will never call it ID or acknowledge the independent thinking of the ID leaders.

We can't always be specific about everything. Scientific theories aren't necessarily all spelled out in detail from the beginning. They usually evolve gradually, and may never be finished.

ID is more a general world view than a specific theory to be tested. But it does make some pretty definite predictions. When types of mutations, or rates of certain kinds of mutations, respond to the environment in some way, that would be a prediction of ID.

The currently accepted theory of evolution (sometimes called MET at Panda's Thumb) predicts that genetic mutations will never respond to changes in the environment.

MET is weakened every time life turns out to be much more complex and ingenious than it was thought to be in Darwin's time.

It's awfully hard, or impossible, to get clear evidence for MET. So ID should not be expected to suddenly come up with decisive evidence. This is a hard question, a decision between world views. Is nature living or dead? That is a major question. Don't expect anyone to solve it quickly, or to summarize it in a short paragraph.

One is that there is behind it a large body of religious people who are too sophisticated to read the Biblical account of creation literally (6 days or 6000 years), but who do have a traditionally religious agenda. Because they have something of a foregone conclusion, they are not as curiosity-driven as the ideal scientist is. (The real-life scientist too often has something of a foregone conclusion, too.)

The second, related reason is that ID is really a critique of evolutionary theory, not yet an alternative theory.

Unfortunately the result is that in the scientific world the very notion of ID is "tainted." But real is right: the ultimate questions is whether there is intelligence operating in nature, and specifically in the mutation process.

The evidence has begun to hint at something like that. Scientists who are interested in this question have to be awfully careful, though. There are certain things -- stopping far short of God -- that they cannot say without risking being shunned for heresy.

If you want to make a new theory, then you've got to have positive evidence FOR it. ID's got zilch.

"...the ultimate questions is whether there is intelligence operating in nature, and specifically in the mutation process."

Yet ID can't help you answer those questions.
It doesn't give you a scientific structure to rationally investigate such questions.

You can't set up an experiment using ID.
You can't gather evidence using ID.
It's not even possible for the 'experts' to coherently define ID.
It's a dead-end, scientifically speaking.

No 'ID scientist' (define that how you will) is doing ANY WORK AT ALL on ID!!
Nothing.
No peer-reviewed papers.
No experiments.
No observations.

Think about that.
They have political clout.
Impressive media coverage.
Millions of dollars.
A list of "700 scientists" and supposedly countless others who support them 'in secret'.

Twenty years of activism.

And yet...no work.

Plenty of coffee-table books.
Perhaps close to a billion press releases.
Lots of political wrangling on school boards and interviews on Fox,...but no actual work.

Thats not science, that's just fraud.

I'm not trying to offend anybody here about this.
Yet it troubles me deeply that people are still prepared to 'go with the flow' when ID presents yet another empty press release.
It's a con.
They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

Meanwhile, actual scientists are finding more and more indications of (small letters) intelligent design at work in the mechanism of heredity and change itself. You're fighting a rear guard action, Cedric. As a defense of the scientific method, it is a valuable service. As a defense of Newtonian biology it is already obsolete.

"ID is not allowed in Universities."
You're claiming censorship?
Extraordinary.

So, ID can't get any peer-reviewed papers done because...they don't allow it at Universities?
What?
All of them??
Every single last one around the planet?
How exactly does that work?

Behe is still at his university.
Nobody stops him from writing his books and making lots of money.
He has access to a lab.
What's stopping him, for example?
Did you see my link in the previous post?
Please check out the date.

Even if there was a local conspiracy at his university, how do they stop him publishing evidence for ID on the Internet?
Perhaps they threaten his family?
Good grief!
Will those monsters stop at nothing?

ID doesn't have a theory.
Not even a hypothesis.
You yourself can't come up with one.
Yet somehow it's 'the Universities' fault that ID can't do peer-reviewed research.
Extraordinary.

(You know, a cynic might be tempted to suggest that ID is just 'a view' and not science and therefore it's pretty much impossible to write a scientific paper on it.)

"The current theory doesn't have experiments either."

Your misunderstanding and misrepresentations of the current theory are not the issue here.

Even if it was true (and of course it's not), it doesn't get ID off the hook.

The absence of one theory's experiments does not create experiments for some other theory.

(If I accuse you of being poor, then counter-accusing me of being poor too does not make you suddenly rich!)

However, thanks for agreeing that ID has no experiments.
I think we both know that there never will be.

(Once again, it's the small problem about there being no valid scientific definition of ID. No Hypothesis, No Theory etc.)

"Didn't you notice that this post is about an observation that supports ID?"

Where exactly do the scientists in the article mention ID?
Please quote that part.
Perhaps I missed it?

You don't have to see the exact words "intelligent design" in an article to see that it shows unexpected intelligence at work in nature.

And no, I don't think there is censorship in American science. There is lots of peer pressure though. Scientists are human and humans are political.

And the association of ID with fundamentalist Christianity is detrimental to ID. But that is no one's fault. It's natural they would form an alliance against materialist atheism.

Materialist atheism has become the dominant world view in American science. Darwin's theory -- that evolution can result from mindless processes -- supports that world view. That is why contemporary forms of Darwinism are accepted without clear evidence or experiments.

People are either for or against ID depending on their personal world view. The debate cannot be settled by scientific evidence at this time, because neither side has any conclusive evidence.

It is a debate, and it's important, and it should not be banned from science classrooms.

Christian creationism does NOT belong in science classrooms. And it is NOT related to ID, except as a political alliance.

But science teachers should not teach the current theory as though it were a fact. We do NOT know that the universe is mindless, we do NOT know how life originated, and we do NOT understand how or why life on earth evolved from one-celled organisms.

All of the evolution research focuses on adaptation. But some researchers are beginning to see that even adaptation cannot be entirely explained by random mutations and natural selection. That's why Amba posted this article.

Actually, real, I think evangelical Christians invented Intelligent Design as a more sophisticated and science-compatible modern descendant of creationism (it is to creationism, let's say, as Homo sapiens is to Homo erectus).

When I first heard about it I got very excited because I thought finally, someone was addressing the unanswered questions I had about evolutionary theory, which centered on the mechanical randomness of mutation. ID turned out to be something rather different than I thought it was, yet they are the only ones frankly addressing the question (deities aside) of whether the process of evolution might be guided or animated by an intrinsic intelligence, even by some kind of awareness or purpose. In a way it's unfortunate that they are addressing it from the religious side, because it will repel those scientists who are already straying into the same territory from the other side, just by what they are finding. Biologists are long overdue for the serious "weirding" that physicists went through in the 20th century.

"Biologists are long overdue for the serious "weirding" that physicists went through in the 20th century."

However the intelligent design theory, by other names, has been around for a very long time. It was not invented by creationists. Even Lamarck's theory, which preceded Darwin's, was a form of intelligent design, although it had nothing to do with creationism.

Arthur Koestler wrote a lot about the history of scientific, materialistic, reductionism, and about the political bias of American science. His book "The Case of the Midwife Toad" is about competing evolution theories.

The holistic - reductionist debate has gone on for centuries in philosophy and science. It's very easy to fall into reductionism, and that is what American science has done. Reductionism is attractive because it makes nature seem potentially manageable and comprehensible.

And then of course there is Sheldrake, who summarized and built upon holistic, vitalist, philosophy in "A New Science of Life." That was in 1981, long before the ID movement.

I think the blend of ID and creationism is, as I said, a political alliance. The two are very far apart philosophically. But that's what happens in politics -- odd and precarious alliances are formed against a common enemy. And IDists and Christian creationists have the same enemy -- scientific atheism.

But their reasons for considering Darwinism and scientific atheism an enemy aren't necessarily the same. There are many factions of the ID movement, and everyone has their own ideas.

There are IDists who complain that Darwinism led to eugenics and the Nazi holocaust, for example. But they're complaining about "survival of the fittest," the aspect of Darwinism that is completely documented and beyond question. They can't revoke a scientific theory just because they don't like its implications!

My own complaint about Darwinism is that I don't think it explains evolution. I'm sure there must be many serious scientists who are bothered by the inadequacies of the theory. It's unfortunate that ID is supported by creationists, because that prevents it from being accepted as scientific.

RealPC said "You don't have to see the exact words "intelligent design" in an article to see that it shows unexpected intelligence at work in nature."

So how do you judge which articles support Intelligent Design?
What's your criteria?
How do you know that you're not just indulging in wishful thinking?

"And no, I don't think there is censorship in American science."
Well, that's a relief.
:)

"But some researchers are beginning to see that even adaptation cannot be entirely explained by random mutations and natural selection."

Exactly how do you get that idea from the article posted by Amba?
Where's your evidence?
How do you get from here to there?
Or do you just somehow 'know'?

Amba said "Actually, real, I think evangelical Christians invented Intelligent Design as a more sophisticated and science-compatible modern descendant of creationism (it is to creationism, let's say, as Homo sapiens is to Homo erectus)."

Amba continues "...only ones frankly addressing the question (deities aside) of whether the process of evolution might be guided or animated by an intrinsic intelligence, even by some kind of awareness or purpose."

And how are they addressing such a question?
Where is their science?
Their hard work?

Amba, it's a con.

RealPC said "I think the blend of ID and creationism is, as I said, a political alliance."

and later...

"And IDists and Christian creationists have the same enemy -- scientific atheism."

Which neatly slots into what Amba said before in a previous post...

"The second, related reason is that ID is really a critique of evolutionary theory, not yet an alternative theory."

That sums it up. A jumble of ill-informed hoary old chestnuts and canards about 'evil evolution' reeled off by the usual suspects.

Why do you think they made a bee-line for Fox News and the school-boards?

Why do they never spell out scientifically exactly what ID is?

You can't do science that way.
You can't expand human knowledge that way.
It's a logical fallacy.
Please. Watch the video.
Fallacy of ID and creationism-False Dichotomy [Reloaded] (9min)

Is the idea to discourage real scientists from designing real experiments to test some of these impressions (that there is something purposive or otherwise non-random involved in mutation)?

Why is the proposition that there is some kind of intelligence at work in nature so dangerous? Of course it's not proven; it's also not disproven. Scientists should not be operating from either kind of unquestioned assumption, but listening to the evidence.

The fact that religious people hold a view something like that (but probably much more simplified and anthropomorphic than whatever might really be transpiring) should not automatically disqualify the idea. Principled atheists don't shun atheism because of the strange bedfellows (like Josef Stalin) it might appear to associate them with.

By all means fight for the scientific method, and insist that all who call themselves scientists adhere to it, but don't try to predetermine where it can and can't lead.

Amba said "Is the idea to discourage real scientists from designing real experiments to test some of these impressions.."

What real scientists?
Name some names.

What real experiments?
Mention some.

How can anybody stop Behe (for example) from doing a real experiment?

Does he have a lab?
Yes.

Does he have a reputation to lose?
No. Everybody KNOWS he's an ID proponent!

Does he have money for research?
He's done very nicely from his coffee-book sales, thanks.

(Besides, there are quite a few very rich Evangelicals who would fall over themselves to sponser him.)

So...what's the hold up?
Where's the hard work?
Where's the science?

Where's the scientific definition of ID?

How about Dembski's Explanatory Filter?
The 'mathematics' have been out there for almost TEN years!!

Has anybody run anything through the filter yet?
A snowflake? A rock? A spiders web?

What's the hold up?
Where's the hard work?
Where's the science?

"Why is the proposition that there is some kind of intelligence at work in nature so dangerous?"

Nothing dangerous about it.
The question is "What can you do with such a proposition?"

Take a scientist.
Let's say he's a friend of yours.
You say to him "I believe there is some kind of intelligence at work in nature."

Your scientist says "OK"

You say "Go forth and do science on this!"

Your scientist friend says "On what?"

You say "I just told you! I think there's some kind of intelligence in Nature. Go and do science on it"

Your scientist friend says "Could you be a little more specific?"

What do you mean by intelligence?
What data have you gathered to support your claim?
May I see it?
Where's your hypothesis?
What tests do you suggest?
What observations should I be on the look-out for?
Can you give me an example of intelligence in nature and an example of non-intelligence in nature to compare?
If you've already got a theory on this, could you please explain the mechanics of it?

Your friend the scientist wants to help you.
You're giving him nothing to go on!

Their motivation is religious and political. Yet that's not the point here.
I'm trying to point out to you that when ID proponents say that they are doing science, that this is a lie.
A demonstrable lie.
A fraud.
A hoax.
Smoke and mirrors.

"The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:

1) OBSERVE some aspect of the universe.

2) FORM a HYPOTHESIS that potentially EXPLAINS what you have observed

3)Make TESTABLE PREDICTIONS from that hypothesis.

4)Make observations or experiments that can TEST those predictions.

5)Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with ALL observations and predictions.

Nothing in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause".
Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses.
And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest.
Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong."

Amba and RealPC, there's no science being done.
You're being lied to.
Call their bluff.

You sound hysterical. The article Amba posted here shows evidence of something non-random going on in the adaptation process. So it directly contradicts part of the foundation of the currently accepted theory.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge that. I don't even know if you read the article.

"scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, ..."

Right, and scientific atheists reject all of the successful parapsychology experiments, and blame all positive results on fraud or error. When statistics and meta-analyses show overwhelming support for non-material phenomena, scientific atheists say statistics and meta-analyses can't be trusted! They say the results cannot be valid, since can't be explained with current scientific knowledge!

Parapsychologists are in the same position as IDists. Mainstream science refuses to acknowledge them.

Your claim that science does not object to research on non-material phenomena is just false. And using parapsychology as an example of the tolerance of mainstream science is very odd. Parapsychologists have their own journals because they are almost never accepted by mainstream journals. Mainstream scientists usually know nothing about parapsychology.

"The article Amba posted here shows evidence of something non-random going on in the adaptation process."

Previously you said...
"But some researchers are beginning to see that even adaptation cannot be entirely explained by random mutations and natural selection. That's why Amba posted this article."

What makes you think so?
Am I supposed to just take your word for this?
Are you defining Intelligent Design as "non-random"?
Or are you defining Intelligent Design as "non-randomness in the adaptation process"?
Explain your criteria.
Where does Intelligent Design fit in?

If you e-mailed Dr A Betancourt, would he/she

A) congratulate you on your stunning new insights
or
B)politely disagree with you while trying to maintain a straight face?

Here's the e-mail address.
e-mail:abetanco@staffmail.ed.ac.uk

"Your claim that science does not object to research on non-material phenomena is just false."

I gave you a very simple five-step process of how science is done.
How do these five steps
(available in any grade school science text-book)
unfairly discriminate against any proposition?
What steps has ID done?
Explain them to me.

1) What have they observed?
2) What is their hypothesis?
3)What are their testable predictions?
4) What are their observations or tests that can test those predictions?
5) How has their hypothesis (if any) been modified to fit all observations and predictions?

Go ahead.
Blind me with the science of ID.

..............................
If it makes you feel better, it's OK to call me hysterical.
I promise I won't hold it against you.
You could even say that I'm afraid of "The Truth" if you want to.
(It's something of a cliche but still...)

You can read the article Amba posted and see an example of research that suggests neo-Darwinism may be wrong, and that it is definitely incomplete.

If neo-Darwinism were correct, you would never find examples of mutation types or rates that differ depending on environmental conditions. You would never see the same mutation having different effects, depending on external factors.

According to neo-Darwinism, genetic variations are completely independent of the needs of organisms. This idea contradicted the preceding Lamarckian theory of evolution.

ID states that the current theory cannot adequately explain the origin of new species. Any evidence that contradicts the current theory's central claim -- that genetic variations are independent of the needs of organisms and species -- is evidence for ID.

ID is a negative theory, in that its central statement is that RM + NS cannot adequately explain evolution. But Darwin's theory was also negative in its time, since its central claim was that Lamarck's theory was wrong. Lamarck said that evolution is purposeful. Darwin questioned the need for purpose in evolution, and hypothesized that it could be an entirely automatic, mindless, process.

Now ID is questioning Darwin's theory, just as Darwin had questioned Lamarck's theory. Every time genetic mutations are found that are, before selection, in some way a response to needs of the species, that is evidence for ID and against the current Darwinist theory.

It's obvious you never worked as a scientist. It just doesn't follow your simple steps. A scientist first has to become interested in important questions, and to somehow know which questions are important. Forming and testing hypotheses depends as much on intuition and guesswork as intellectual analysis. Research -- if it has any value -- is arduous and frustrating. Science is an art, a very difficult one.

You demand that ID researchers come up with easy to summarize hypotheses and perform experiments that give definitive answers. This doesn't happen in mainstream evolutionary biology, but you demand it of ID. You obviously have been reading a lot of anti-ID propaganda, directed at non-scientists.

I disagree with Discovery Institute on a lot of things, and my beliefs about evolution are independent of any political group. I believe what seems most reasonable to me, based on what is known so far.

No one knows what causes evolution. I don't see any reason to get emotional about it. It's an interesting scientific controversy, not a political contest. The answer, whatever it may turn out to be, has nothing to do with politics or personalities or emotion.

"It's obvious you never worked as a scientist. It just doesn't follow your simple steps."

Prove it!
Find a science text book.
ANY SCIENCE TEXT BOOK!!!

You will find none that say

"...somehow know..."

or give equal weight to 'intuition/guesswork' and testing hypotheses.

RealPC said "Science is an art, a very difficult one."

Now you are just being silly.
Show me the science text book you got that precious statement from.

"You demand that ID researchers come up with easy to summarize hypotheses and perform experiments that give definitive answers."

Damn straight!
Science is demonstrable.
It's verifiable.

Scientists have this picky little habit of demanding EVIDENCE.

RealPC goes on to shoot herself in the foot thusly...
"This doesn't happen in mainstream evolutionary biology, but you demand it of ID."

I've explained this to you before.
I don't care about your misconceptions about evolutionary biology.
If I want you to tell me about what you think about evolutionary biology, I'll ask you.

Even if you were correct (and of course, you're not) that does not help ID in the slightest.

Echo**(If I accuse you of being poor, then counter-accusing me of being poor too does not make you suddenly rich!)**Echo

RealPC said "You obviously have been reading a lot of anti-ID propaganda, directed at non-scientists."

You have no idea what I've been reading.
Your speculation is worthless.

Yet I would love to know what science text book gave you your odd-ball understanding of science.
Please tell me.

RealPC, you have nothing to offer.
You cannot talk about ID because there is nothing to talk about.
You can only ramble on uselessly about biology, Darwinism etc.

You never really get around to focusing on ID.

You've never offered a scientific definition of ID.

Scientists say that if you can't observe, gather date, form a hypothesis etc.....then....you've ...got... nothing.
Anybody can understand that.

ID is a sham.
Your hapless hand-waving demonstrates this beautifully.

What science has ID done?
Explain it to me.

1) What have they observed?
2) What is their hypothesis?
3)What are their testable predictions?
4) What are their observations or tests that can test those predictions?
5) How has their hypothesis (if any) been modified to fit all observations and predictions?

Science is an art, involving creativity, guesswork and intuition. Ask any research scientist and they will confirm what I am saying. It's very obvious to me that you have never worked as a scientific researcher.

I have already explained over and over what the evolution controversy is about, and how the article Amba posted supports ID. I will not continue repeating the same things.

There is political propaganda on both sides of the controversy. We should try to ignore the propaganda and look at the evidence.

Not having a research scientist handy , how about you dig up a science text-book that supports your statement?
Any science text-book.
Even a little tiny one with cute pictures in it.
..........................
RealPC, From your previous post I can only sadly conclude that you have a problem with basic literacy in English.

In my previous posts I asked you repeatedly not to go off-topic.

I said previously...
"Thanks RealPC, but your creative interpretation of what 'neo-darwinism' is doesn't really interest me."

And again I said...
"No, no, no.
I don't care about your strawman representation of Darwinism, neo-darwinism, evolutionary biology or whatever."

And yet AGAIN I said...
"I've explained this to you before.
I don't care about your misconceptions about evolutionary biology.
If I want you to tell me about what you think about evolutionary biology, I'll ask you."

But apparently it didn't sink in.
For in your latest post, you blathered thusly...

"I have already explained over and over what the evolution controversy is about..."

Evolution?
You are the only one talking about Evolution here.

I'd like to talk about Intelligent Design.
Read my lips.
SLOWLY.

I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.T D.E.S.I.G.N.

Got it now, or do I have to repeat myself?
............................
Complaining about Neo-dawinism or whatever does not translate into evidence for Intelligent Design.

Complaining about Theory X does not mean you therefore have support for Theory Y.

No.
You did nothing of the kind.
You said...
"You can read the article Amba posted and see an example of research that suggests neo-Darwinism may be wrong, and that it is definitely incomplete."

So here you're talking about neo-darwinism, not ID.
Strike one.

Later you said said...
""The article Amba posted here shows evidence of something non-random going on in the adaptation process."

Even if this is true, there's still no mention of ID here.
Strike two.

And later still you said...
"You can read the article Amba posted and see an example of research that suggests neo-Darwinism may be wrong, and that it is definitely incomplete."

And once again we're back to good old-fashioned neo-darwinism.
Strike three.

RealPC said "I will not continue repeating the same things."

(Dear sweet merciful Vishnu, I sincerely hope so.)

How about if we talk about a new topic (at least for you!).

Let's talk about how scientific Intelligent Design is.

You could maybe give me a scientific definition of ID, yeah?

Then you could tell me what 'ID scientists' have OBSERVED.
Then you could give me a run-down of their exciting new HYPOTHESIS.
I'd really like to know about their testable PREDICTIONS.
For the sake of polite discussion, please throw in some info about what observations and/or tests that could TEST those predictions.
And finally, you could lightly touch on how their hypothesis has been modified to fit all OBSERVATIONS AND PREDICTIONS.

"Science is a method of explaining the natural world. It assumes that anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Science also assumes that the universe operates according to regularities that can be discovered and understood through scientific investigations. The testing of various explanations of natural phenomena for their consistency with empirical data is an essential part of the methodology of science. Explanations that are not consistent with empirical evidence or cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science. As a result, explanations of natural phenomena that are not based on evidence but on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, and superstitions are not scientific. Furthermore, because science is limited to explaining natural phenomena through the use of empirical evidence, it cannot provide religious or ultimate explanations.

The most important scientific explanations are called “theories.” In ordinary speech, “theory” is often used to mean “guess” or “hunch,” whereas in scientific terminology, a theory is a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories are powerful tools. Scientists seek to develop theories that

are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence;
are logically consistent with other well-established principles;
explain more than rival theories; and
have the potential to lead to new knowledge.
The body of scientific knowledge changes as new observations and discoveries are made. Theories and other explanations change. New theories emerge, and other theories are modified or discarded. Throughout this process, theories are formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."
National Science Teachers Associationhttp://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

"Science, by definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be tested and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not science. Creationism, whether in its earlier form as creation “science” or its more recent guise of intelligent design, attempts to explain complicated phenomena of the natural world by invoking a creator or designer. Creationism is not science because it invokes supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested. It therefore has no place in a science curriculum."
The Geological Society of Americahttp://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm

Intelligent Design theory may be bad science, but it is good politics. People with no grounding in the scientific method and philosophy are highly susceptible to its arguments, for the simple reason that the scientific method does not come naturally to people. After all, if the scientific method did come naturally to people, it wouldn't have taken humanity more than three thousand years after the discovery of iron to figure out that you can make a boat out of it.

So what is the basic philosophy of Intelligent Design, and how does it differ from the philosophy of science? Well....

Scott Adams at The Dilbert Blog has become convinced of Intelligent Design! The piece of evidence that tipped him might just be your last straw, too.

Only if I were as willfullyignorant about biology as he is. Many real biologists have tried to point out his errors to him, but he dismisses them as some sort of cabal, or motivated by irrational animus toward religion, or some other ad hominem nonsense.

When I first heard about it I got very excited because I thought finally, someone was addressing the unanswered questions I had about evolutionary theory, which centered on the mechanical randomness of mutation.

You're all welcome to come here, comment, argue, and flame, but I would ask Cedric to stop repeating himself. Cedric, all your arguments are here several times for anyone to see. You've been beating them to death.

No, you didn't "have to" repeat the same basic scientific questions again. "She made me do it," like men are so wont to say in a wide variety of situations.

Your point was strong the first time. Each subsequent repetition halved its strength. You began to sound more and more like a propagandist, or a roving exterminator, or something. Repeating your catechism, like some other people here.

And the time before that was 4 days earlier. And yet Amba asks you, 2 days after your last post, to stop repeating yourself, then tosses in some idiotic sexist crap, and a bunch of offensive charges. Just another internet ass, it seems.

It certainly takes one to know one. I have a job, two if you count caregiving, and a life. I don't spend nearly as much time lurking around my own and other people's blogs as I used to. TWO WHOLE DAYS passed since Cedric posted last, saying the same thing for the fifth or sixth time. Respond? I just told him his argument was strong the first time. Now he is protesting too much.

And does he do science, or does he just go around being Opus Dei to James Randi's Pope? The catechism-like behavior falls into precisely the trap you want to avoid, of making scientism look as emotional and irrational as religion.

I don't know what point Cedric had that you think was strong. He thinks ID is stupid? Well, I guess that makes him feel smart and all-knowing. Lots of Darwinists feel the same way. But the fact is that no one knows what caused evolution.

And science is an art. Ask any professional researcher or graduate student. Cedric has simple-minded layman's ideas about what science is.

Cedric listed the 5 steps of the scientific method, which sort of speak for themselves. In that respect, science has been a tremendous advance on superstition. he didn't have to repeat them 5 or 6 times, though.